BS: Historic tour slave issue

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 11:24 AM

I don't think this is merely repeating itself, I think it's getting really good and interesting posts. If nothing else, I think I found the book to give my sister this Xmas, and she's hard to shop for. Thanks Greg F. Last year she gave me Banvard's Folly, by her friend Paul Collins, which turned out to be one of the most entertaining books I've read in years.

   What I meant to suggest was not that unsupported or a-historical pov's were also valid, but that supportable historical accounts aren't necesarily valid in the way one may want them to be. I was thinking of Karl Popper's writing about historicism, and it's critique of how a thesis, which, if it turns up historical incidents and materials, is then considered proven or borne out, when it only shows that it's more or less fertile. One can come up with odd-ball ideas that history seems to support in this way, my own favorite invention being All history is the clash between the performer-types and the techies, and their respective cultures.

   I made up my mind that the things our guide said were not good things to say--not that this person had an agenda of evil, or meant any ill, but that it's quite loaded, and they should go into it seriously, and deliberately, not so casually and generally. I'm not against controversy in classrooms, but the remarks were pre-emptive and blunt, like when my "social-studies" teacher told us that Indians had no concept of owning land, so you couldn't say it was stolen from them. One shouldn't abuse the hard-to-hold attention of school-kids by casually tossing out half-baked notions like that.

But the thread has turned up stuff that goes beyond my question, and it's good stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 09:35 AM

Some seem to be suggesting that all historical interpretations and analyses, from those well documented by a large body of evidence through those less well documented, those that are a-historical or anti-historical, to those that are outright invention with no supporting evidence whatsoever are equally valid 'points of view' and all equally credible. This is idiocy.

The 'free exchange of ideas' that Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed as essential to a functioning democracy hardly means that all should be accepted at face value and given equal weight without troubling to examine and assess their validity, and Holmes, possibly the greatest intellect ever to sit on the Supreme Court whether one agrees with his rulings or not, would be appalled and outraged at the suggestion.

Labeling as "political correctness" ( which term is now applied to so many divergent situations as to have become virtually meaningless except as a right-wing buzz-word term of opprobrium for anything involving the exercise of intellect)- the attempt to assess the validity of differing historical assertions / points of view is disingenuous- and intellectually sloppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 09:15 AM

For a slave to love his or her master-- to remain human despite being classed as inhuman-- is a triumph of that slave's spirit over an insane arrangement, not a testimony to the goodness of the owner.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Happy Slave
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 02:12 AM

I retired some 17 years ago, so "what, me worry?" Don't mean to be flip, but I was happy in my job and am happy in my retirement.
I started out in a right to work state. and was transferred to one without it. The only difference I could see is that the union set the vacation days in the second (same number of days, just moved around a bit).

The above has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which seems to be just repeating itself. No, we can't change the past. Society has moved on. The political correctness trend seems to try to get everything painted black or white, subjugating history to a "just so" interpretation.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, our greatest Supreme Court jurist, ruled in 1919 that the First Amendment protected all speech, however offensive, but we are seeing several groups trying to limit that right, and demonizing those with whom they disagree. Some of the "politically correct" trends bear the seeds of fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From:
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 01:44 AM

There's no right thing to say, no right thing to do. I once heard somebody say (addressing white people, of course), if you're having trouble understanding the doctrine of original sin, think of slavery. You did nothing personally, you're doing nothing personally, but the effects are all around, and the blood is on your hands, and no amount of scrubbing or denying will alter that fact. The blood is not a problem to be solved, or a crime to make restitution for. It is an irreducible fact of our lives, and the only choice we have is to live with it in a way that's as honest as possible. Some dignity may be possible that way.

I'm not trying to sell anybody on theological categories here. Just handing along something I found illuminating. It has stuck with me a good many years. There's a passage in "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" where he tells how after one of his talks, a tearful white girl asked him, "What can I do?" He answered "Nothing." He later regretted saying that, and the retraction would of course be his business, but I think he spoke a hard truth in the moment.

Adam

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 01:27 AM

Not a private thread Bobert. I'm not in a right to work state, I'm a teamster. I also think that slavery isn't over, that I have advantages that came from somewhere. I agree that there are truths about absolutes like freedom that are hidden and hard for all of us to make out clearly. I sometimes think the real way to vote is by what you'll spend a dollar on. If anybody got organised about it. If you could keep up with where that dollar went.

Parts of this discussion are like getting a piece of tape on your finger, you try to get it off, it sticks there, etc. If I make a comparison, somebody might take it as an equation. I hope I haven't offended anybody, it's pretty hard to always say the right thing. That's what I'm bothered about. What's the right thing to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 24 Nov 02 - 12:12 AM

Sounds to me as though he/she may already there, Bobert.

Equating living in a right to work law state with slavery is a pretty good stetch, Bobert, even for you. I live in one of those, and folks don't have it so bad out here except in summer when Boss Hogg sweats right along side of all of us po' folks.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 11:41 PM

GUEST:

Check back in with me about the time you *thought* you'd be retirin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 11:35 PM

Bobert, being a modern "slave" is a hell of a lot better than plowing that old 40 acre homestead. Boss Hog's "assembly line" has given me a house, an SUV, paid for my kids' college, paid fishing vacations and finally a damn good pension.

Happy Slave.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 10:48 PM

Now, excuse me If I'm butting into a private thread and I'll be the first to admit that I have not taken the hour or two to read evert post on this thread.... so if I am redundant, please excuse me BUT:

1. SLAVERY has not ended. Yeah, lots of folks in the "Right to Work" states (14-B of the Taft Hartley Act) live no better than the "slaves" did a hundred and some years ago, (Realatively speaking, of course)/

2. This country was built on the backs of slave labor, it's infastructure and its wealth and it is BS to not recognize this *fact* as "white America" is faced with the opportunity to make things right thru reparations. Hey, I don't give a flying *whatever* if you think that you weren't responsible. You're enjoying the harvest!

3. There is a new salve class that is being brought forward in the American *consumer*. Yeah, buy the house on credit, the SUV on credit, all thre stuff at the malls on credit. Yeah, buy all the stuff that the *ad-men* say "you gotta have" and you'll end up on Boss Hog's assembly line on the day that you die. Guarenteed.

Sorry, if I dampened anyone's spirits here but.... Hey, they got most of your butts in their sling....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 10:27 PM

Yes. (pause.)

I brought this up and appreciate, I really do, all the responses. The guide's comments bothered me, I didn't know exactly why, but it helps to hear what people think, even if, and sometimes especially if you disagree.

Slavery and race aside, it bothers me that they are doing a general commercial, for a relatively non-existent product. If they told me they grew "good" tomatoes I'd doubt it unless I tasted them. I'm quite sure some people treated slaves better than others, and fully accept that perhaps these people did. The historical aspect doesn't get to me. If some black people fought for slavery, believing they should be slaves, or whatever, I truly do not care if they did. Or didn't. Why should I? Being black slaves doesn't make them my moral compass, I'm not sentimental about it. Do I care more about what Socrates, or the ancient slave he discussed epistomology and math with thought. Neither, I just want to make sense of it. The fact that something happened doesn't prove anything, all sorts of stupid bullshit HAPPENS... then we call it History. Different times, different mores--sure, I get that, but it doesn't address why, why now, in these different times different mores, do they want or need to put a spin on it? And even if they do want or need to, is it effective? Convincing? No. It has the opposite effect. Go to some old house with fifteen black kids, see if it makes any sense to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 05:38 PM

Jeez, Dan Fogelberg. That IS pretty wierd....

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 04:16 PM

I get the feeling that someone here is saying accept my version of history or none.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 09:20 AM

Greg F, As I say, I'm not so much the scholar, but it's hard not to read a book called Why people believe weird things. I once knew a woman who seemed sane enough, until she mentioned that the holocaust was a hoax. That, and she loved Dan Fogelberg.

Someday we'll all un-durrr-stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 12:53 AM

For folks who have been patiently (or otherwise) following this thread, a read of "Part Four: History and Pseudohistory" in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Wierd Things NY, W.H. Freeman & Co. 1997 might be rewarding. The tactics and devices used by the the likes of the Neo-Confederate gang & other pseudo-history proponents are discussed at some length and Mr. or Ms. Casual's tactics will be easily recognized.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 11:43 PM

No, Cas, I think you're just plain pissed. You're coming thru with more examples of half-truth and bullshit, but you're not speaking to any of the previous points under discussion. Let me try one more:

Is the crappy treatment free Blacks admittedly received in the North
supposed to somehow justify or excuse Southern Slavery ?

Are you missing the point of this on purpose, or do you simply not understand? You might try reading some of those well-researched, footnoted books I mentioned (no conveniently lost records here; all factually documented), instead of publications by the Sons of the Confederacy!

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 08:00 PM

DougR! We can't seem to get this right. Your sincere apologies? Not at all--again, my sincere thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 04:19 PM

A Doug R says, other times.
Interesting reading is "Memoirs of a Southern Woman." Southern Woman , an online book on this University of North Carolina Documenting the South website.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 03:15 PM

My sincere apologies, Fred Miller. These old eyes of mine need new glasses evidently.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 03:02 PM

DougR not that there's any point, but, gosh you do have a great gift of mis-stating a case. No offense I hope--I'm pretty sure I said you'd contributed the most in the way of resolving it for me--only not in the way of agreeing with you, but in the other general direction. Thanks though, we simply disagree, and I appreciate the discussion. As you say, different mores.

What's a more? When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 11:45 AM

Guest Fred Miller: this is obviously worrisome to you (what the guide said)and I, as you say, am not contributing anything that helps you resolve the problem.

Were I to take the tour, it would not create a problem for me. Certainly not to the degree that it has you anyway. The reason for that I have already enumerated and there is no point in repeating (different time - different mores).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 11:26 AM

Greg, obviously you and I have not read the same books.

Nowhere did I slander any US Colored Troops. I said their COMMANDING OFFICERS had doubts about them. That is extremely well-documented, and if you are as well-read as you would have us all believe, then you would know that, and you would also know that in the beginning of their enlistment, they were given busy work, and not combat roles. Even though they did prove their worth, they still were not paid the same as white soldiers, and they were still very often the first to be killed. Cannon fodder, I believe they call it. That was certainly no fault of theirs. Who was first over the wall at Ft. Wagner?

There are many, many personal accounts of white US soldiers complaining that they did not want to fight alongside Colored Troops. Time-Life published an excellent series a few years ago that is based almost entirely on personal accounts, and I highly recommend it as an enlightening resource. Letters and journals of the period are guaranteed to make you question what you think you know about history.

The US Army was no stranger to forced labor, either. It is well-documented that they kept "contrabands" around to build earthworks and the like. Their other choice was to be sent back to Massa. There are also documented instances of US soldiers having black "body servants" with them. (Photographs are available in the Time-Life series I mentioned.)

The Internet is not an infallible research tool, but it is at the very least, a place to start. One of the challenges with official Confederate records is that many have been lost, as there was not such a repository for those records as there was for US records. Often we are left with nothing but what someone said about this, or that.

So, who were those black Confederates that Frederick Douglass said he saw? Perhaps it was, as you say, a joke.

No free black man was ever forced to go to a Confederate soldiers' reunion, as far as I know. But they went, for whatever reason. Some of them even received pensions from the individual states.

I believe I am all pissed out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 10:16 AM

DougR, I think instead, we started at an impass and haven't got beyond it. I'd like to understand what you mean, to get it, but as I've tried to sort out what bothered me about this encounter, your comments have done more to convince me something was amiss than anything else.

   What kind of rhetorical device is it to ask Wouldn't you rather be a slave for someone who treated you well? Sure, yeah. But wait--you mean, if you had a choice? Right? That's a smooth sounding hypothetical question that side-steps something like the whole point. Come to think of it, while it's about what I'd rather, I'd rather work for a slaveowner who didn't know he owned me, and thought he owed me a living, and was a genie I found in a bottle, and she looked just like Barbara Eden. I really can't see that you're sincerely applying yourself to the question, with your They didn't think it was wrong then, and your If it was legal. Sounds like you mean moral questions are a game, which I doubt you intend to say. I think my guide's comments bother me the same way--maybe perfectly well-intended, for all I know, but quite thoughtless, in the situation. They ought to give some thought to it.

   I'm not so much the scholar as others here, I'm just trying to reckon it a little. People have said, they shouldn't say it unless it has basis in fact, but I'm thinking So what if it does, why say it like that? There are millions of things in fact that they won't get around to while they're bringing that up. And then it's a game of whose pile of facts is bigger. Why are they making a case that I need to grant these dead people some slack for not being those worse worser worstest slave-owners? What do they want from me?

For the descendent's family, I'd guess. But if it were my family's old home, I wouldn't appreciate the effort, I'd be embarrassed by it. As others here show, it lends itself to a line of racist sentiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 06:38 PM

Cas, ol' boy or gal, your relentless support for historical fiction- "it's posted on a website, so it's gotta be true!- is childish and is really getting old.

Was the forced labor of Black slaves used to support the Confederate war effort, much as slave labor was used to support the Nazi war effort? Of course it was.

Does that mean that the slaves in either case supported the political, social, or military aims of their owners or of the Nazis? Bullshit.

Does the fact that slave labor was employed to aid the war effort by the Nazis or the Confederacy somehow 'ennoble' or 'justify' either regime? Of course not. Quite the reverse.

Did Confederates dress up their slaves in uniforms (or mock uniforms; some of those photos look pretty dodgy) and photograph them? Kinda like you'd dress up a dog and photograph it as a joke? Apparently so- unless those photos -as many appear to be- were taken 20 or 30 years after the war, at a reunion and as part of the "reconciliation" sell-out of Blacks by Northern AND Southern veterans, who largely ignored them. Plenty written on this selective memory scam ; start with the essay "Ken Burns and the Romance of Reunion" by Eric Foner (2001).

Your slander of Black troops in the 20 Nov. post only shows your complete ignorance of the military records of the units of the United States Colored Troops and the 30,000 plus FREE blacks- many of them escaped slaves- who DID volunteer to enlist and actually carried arms for the United States. The military records of these units- many who showed extraordinary bravery- are readily available, many have comprehensive published regimental histories. Perhaps some of the folks who have been posting about disrespect for US Veterans on the other threads can jump in here and give me a hand.
Remember too that members of the USCT went into battle with the added burden knowing they faced execution if captured- the Confederacy would not take "Nigger" prisoners.

Enough with the bullshit, already. Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 03:09 PM

KimC, (as you know, but mentioned here for newbies) a number of the spirituals from Allen's 1867 collection have been posted here, along with references to this docsouth site. See African-American Spirituals permathread. In the online text go to p. XXXIX for an index.
Also on Univ. North Carolina docsouth, is Fenner's collection from 1874. Cabin-Plantation songs Scroll to p. 256 for an index. Most of these were published in editions of "Religious Folk Songs of the Negro" and were sung by the Hampton Singers. Some of these also posted here and listed on the Spirituals Permathread.
Higginson's Negro Spirituals, 1867, is also on line at Negro Spirituals Thiry-seven songs including Many Thousand Go and Hangman Johnny. Other interestin texts are at this University of Virginia site.

All of this is repetition; these sites are mentioned in a number of spirituals threads posted over the past year or so, but they bear repeating.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 12:17 PM

Okie dokie, Fred. Seems we have reached an impass. On to other things.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Kim C
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 11:49 AM

Oh, fercryinoutloud, let's dispense with the pissing contest.

Anyone who's interested in the subject, there's plenty to read. Go out and find it, get enlightened, and make up your own mind. Whatever you decide, it ain't going to change what's already happened.

Anyone who goes to a historic site and has questions about what the guides are saying, just ask. If the guide doesn't know, go on up the ladder till you find someone who can tell you. If they can't tell you, do the research yourself, present it with documentation, and you've accomplished two things: 1)you've learned something, and 2) you've given the site information that will improve public interpretation.

Now, I'm turning this into a music thread: Slave Songs
This book was originally published in the late 1860s.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 10:47 AM

http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/black_confederates.htm

http://www2.netdoor.com/%7Ejgh/discover.html

http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt_529.htm

http://www.jayrandolph.com/southern-heritage/blacks.htm

Even Frederick Douglass reported seeing blacks in Confederate uniforms. Maybe his eyesight was bad, or he was fond of telling tall tales.

Here's the story of a man who went to war with his master; as a free man, in later years, he attended the reunions. Why? He was certainly under no obligation to do so.

http://www.mosocco.com/florida.html

Sailors too: http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862blackCSN.htm

Apparently there were a number of mixed-race men who passed for white and enlisted on those grounds.

There is no conspiracy, just the big picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 10:29 AM

DougF, Yes, I won't even quibble over "more humanely." I never intended that anyone must demonize this slave-owning family. But rather than saying they treated the slaves well, it would be better, don't you agree, to simply stick to any specific known evidence? Especially since there may be things they don't know? All the members of the family always treated all the slaves "well." It sounds wrong, because it is wrong.

   Yes I get what you mean, and I'd rather work for an employer who treated me better. But it's funny you mention that. Nobody paused to tell us whether they were "nice" to any free white laborers they hired, whether they paid them well, offered them a lemonade on hot days. Why not? Wouldn't you rather work for someone who was nice to you? How come it only came up about slaves, not anyone they hired? It sounds wrong because it is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,truckerdave
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 09:50 AM

WHAT HAPPENED??!!!! Just as i was beginning to type a denouncement of all those Neo-confederate sites my blank message was posted. It's a conspiracy no doubt. As far as i know i have only seen one reference to a black confederate. There is a statue in south carolina somewhere of the only poor misguided black man thought to have worn a confederate uniform. I don't remember where i saw or heard this since it's been a few years back, so it may not be correct. Hey, there's always some fellow that's going to fight on the wrong side, like "Johnny Taliban." Some indian tribes, including my ancestors the Chickasaw, owned slaves and fought for the south in Oklahoma. Thier slaves were treated like humans and eventually were adopted into the tribe though.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,truckerdave
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 09:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:12 PM

No, its Bullshit. We've been presented with unsubstantiated bullshit.

Nice try, Casual, but slaves didn't have the option of saying no to forced labor for the Confederacy..

Document some Free Blacks that volunteered to "serve" in the Confederate forces.

Otherwise its just bullshit. And very sloppily researched bullshit at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 07:15 PM

No, Greg, I have seen the photos from the concentration camps.

You have been presented with information that you choose to deny.

It is true that African-Americans did not "officially" fight in the Confederate Army. They served as teamsters, cooks, and laborers. When the United States Army decided to enlist African-Americans, the original plan was for those soldiers to be teamsters, cooks, and laborers too.

Ask yourself why the US Colored Troops always seemed to be at the front lines of battle. It wasn't because their commanders thought they were so terribly brave. It was so less white soldiers would die.

No, African-Americans did not "officially" fight in the Confederate Army.

And the United States Navy did not "officially" test mustard gas on anyone in the 1940s, either.

There are many more nuances to the issue than just what you believe. You have but a very small part of a colossal picture. History is revealed on a daily basis, by people doing new research; people who realize just how big that picture is. Sometimes things are revealed that force us to change our idea of the past. My, isn't that often very difficult?

That is all I have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Bardford
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 05:02 PM

I've been reading The Narratives of Fugitive Slaves in Canada. First published in 1856. There is an online version at the link below. The words therein of Edward Patterson speak to the issue of treatment - "I was well used, as it is called in the South, but I don't think my usage was human. For, what is good treatment?"

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/drew/drew.html

Narratives of Fugitive Slaves

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 04:27 PM

Oh, Great- the "Happy Darky"or "Old Kentucky Home" thesis of the antebellum south wasn't bad enough.

Now we get half a dozen "Neo-Confederate" movement websites posted promoting more bogus, a-historical garbage, 'substantiated' by footnotes from works published by the un-biased[sic] "Southern Heritage Press" vanity press... can't wait for Casual Observer to put up his favorite Holocaust Denial websites.

For those who aren't familiar with the "Neo-Confederate" gang, do a 'Google" or other search so you'll know just how bogus this stuff is. You could start HERE as an introduction; certainly not the best of many such sites but I don't have time at the moment to find a better.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 02:06 PM

Somewhere above I noted that 500 Slave Narratives are on line at American Memory. JUst type that in the Search box. I presume the book is a selection of these.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 01:26 PM

Fred, Jerry: I think that some posters to this thread are trying to impose the mores of this century upon the people who lived in a century long gone by.

Yes, slavery was wrong. We believe that now. It was accepted a normal practice in the South in that century. Things that happened then, can be condemned, but they cannot be changed now.

Some slave owners mistreated their slaves. Evidently, some did not. Were I a slave, I darn sure would rather have been owned by someone that treated me humanely, than a owner that did not. Wouldn't you?

As someone hinted, not all employees today are treated well by their employers. I believe most of us would, given the choice, work for an employer that treated us humanely and fairly.

Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that that could also have existed during the time of slavery?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 11:54 AM

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/1163/black.html

http://morgans_men.tripod.com/black.htm

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/3843/blackconfed.htm

http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010410.htm

http://blackconfederates.tripod.com/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1996/n02051996_9602053.html

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,truckerdave
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 11:07 AM

The "thousands" of black men who volunteered to fight for the south??? Damn. I live in Mississippi and i've never heard of this. Doggone it, why didn't they tell us this in school? This whole civil rights thing could have been avoided if we had only known that the black southerners were "rebels" too!!......... I have heard that confederate armies didn't generally take black prisoners. Anyone care to guess what that means?
    Yes, there were a few slaveowners who treated thier "property" decently. A few years back i was sitting under a shade tree with my neighbor at the time, an 82 year old black lady. She started telling me stories her grandfather, an adult slave at the time of the civil war, had told her like it was yesterday. I was astounded. It seems so far distant to us, but to this old lady it was real. Seems he was owned by a doctor and received education and some medical training. He had bought the land and built the house they were still living in. May i suggest a book to read, "Bullwhip Days, The Slaves Remember"? It's interviews with slaves still living in the 1930's. It's not real pretty but it's what the slaves saw and remembered.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:41 AM

Doug R. There's a difference between legal and moral. You can be grossly immoral, and not break the law. And omission is a much more common sin than comission. Some corporate heads manage to keep from flagrantly breaking the law and make millions, while the people who are on the front line doing the work are making minimum wage, have no health care, their pension plans have been destroyed and they have to work two jobs to survive. Retirement is no longer an option. Perhaps they too are "good" to their employees and say Hello every morning when they come in to work. Might even give them a little Christmas bonus.

Greed and selfishness will never be eradicated by laws.

Jery

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:27 AM

Well Doug, my feelings again, How well can one possibly treat one's slave? If you had to generalise, how about, It Appears They Tried To Treat The Slaves Decently? They Treated Them Well is a crude, tenditious generalization that I very much doubt they could know very well anyway. If they found evidence that the owners served their slaves breakfast in bed, I wouldn't object to them saying they had found that evidence.

More pointedly, if many slaves stayed after emancipation, I don't mind them saying so, but if it is meant to demonstrate much of anything, and it seemed to be, then it's very slanted, to a point of view I object to (and to a kind of communication I object to maybe as much) since a world of opportunities did not suddenly open to most slaves.

Slavery aside, I don't think I could ever finish saying exactly what bothers me about it. It seems to me to smack into the face of genuinely imagining the reality of history. Apart from being awful sentimentality, in my opinion, it's still also mere sentimentality.

I didn't exactly say that it was wrong for anyone to enjoy luxuries that others don't have, I said I think it's wrong that we enjoy luxuries while others suffer for want of necessities. I think so, maybe other people don't, but it seems there is something horribly wrong in a culture of self-righteous striving for excess, when people are hungry. When I watch someone spend $50,000.00 on a rug they don't even like, because in their fantasy of themselves as cultured aristocrats they feel they are supposed to have it, no, I don't envy them. I don't believe that people with more money are proportionally more happy, or that because I have less money I am proportionally less guilty. (Maybe a little, sometimes, but that's my own fantasy.)

I was simply trying to make the point that I didn't want to be very high-handed about slavery, since it's been pretty easy for me not to have slaves, or be a slave. But that there are perhaps comparable injustices I feel powerless to change, but am a party to. A lot of our individual moral lives are marginal to more general, institutionalised, moral injustice. I was trying to imagine if I were a slave, could I possibly love my owner's family? Maybe. Maybe not. The children seem easier. Could I live my life in sustained moral outrage? Probably not, though I had reason. The truth of the past lives I imagine is as hard and particular as our lives now, and so I object to remarks like They were good to their slaves, no matter what on earth was meant by it.

Greg, I think we agree--in general. And thanks for your input.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: DougR
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 07:41 PM

But Guest, Fred Miller, suppose the tour guide was telling the truth! Do you think it wrong for the guide to comment on the treatment of the slaves if, in fact, they did receive good treatment? Should they lie and say they were horrible "Massas?" If they were good to their slaves, why not say it?

Also, what's ridiculous about someone enjoying luxuries that others cannot afford. If they came by their luxuries legally, what's wrong with them enjoying them? I'd love to belong to a luxurious golf club but I can't afford it. I don't resent those who can.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Greg F
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 12:57 PM

Fred, sorry if I come across as judgemental.I'm no oracle; simply trying to be firm and unequivocal.

I'm not saying Stockholm Syndrome or an equivalent coping strategy explains every instance of this perceived behavior, but that it could certainly explain a significant number. I also don't doubt that many slaveowners in their paternalism deluded themselves that their slaves viewed them with affection; it made it considerably easier for them to sleep at night.

Certainly some slaveowners treated their slaves better (oops- almost said more humanely)than others did, much as, for example, some guards at Buchenwald or Sobibor were less brutal than others. But this individual variation does not diminish the horror of the holocaust any more than it does of slavery.

I admit that I'm impatient with those (and I DON'T include you in the category)that seem to suggest or imply that it does.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 11:46 AM

Well, my feeling was that our guide was more an idiot than anything else, and that it would be best that there were a general policy of not spinning a viewpoint.

I find Adams' articulate views close to my own inarticulate instincts, although he may not. Some otherwise admirable and morally intelligent people were slaveowners, or were somehow parties to it. It has not been so long that I can see myself high above it--I surely have accepted and still gain many advantages left over from it. Given that a slave could not undo the wrong of their slavery, putting one way of coping with it down to Stockholm syndrome seems entirely too reductive. Greg you seem to be judging from a higher position than I can put myself. Nothing contravenes the wrong of slavery, but there is individual significance in how one acts under a great injustice. Individual, not general significance.

   For example, it's surely wrong that we enjoy ridiculous luxuries while others starve, and that imbalance is part of an institution that we may individually feel powerless to change. But how we live and act in this situation may have some range of significance, even if it is marginal to the greater wrong of it all.

   Still, I don't want a tour guide telling me how nice some people were to their slaves. I didn't go there to be their judge anyway, and it seems to be reaching for a general significance it can't pertain to.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 10:28 AM

And be sure to scroll down and read their "Mission Statement" as well, which should remove any doubt as to their objectivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 09:22 PM

Interesting story here. Chandler Boys
After reading, please scroll on down and click on to "Forgotten in Gray."

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 05:06 PM

Kim, Certain people glean from history only those facts which support their own view. There is no room for shading. Discussion serves no purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 04:32 PM

Sorry, Kim, but I think you missed the thrust of the discussion with Adam, above.

The "abuse" -Negro chattel slavery itself- with all the debasement, degredation, and horror that it entailed was not and is not rendered less of an "abuse" (and "abuse" by the way, is a somewhat mild way of describing, for example, murder by mutilation) no matter how many examples are trotted out of certain Black folks developing attachments (Stockholm Syndrome aside) for certain White folks, and vice versa.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Nov 02 - 10:09 AM

All I know about the Edmonds' Aunt Letty is what I read in Tee's journal. This was in the 1860s so in all probability, she was born in the United States, not Africa, but I don't know that for sure. We also don't have any way of knowing what her given name was, at least not from the journal. If any of the Edmonds family records still exist, it might possibly be there somewhere.

Abuses occured. That's an indisputable fact. However, there are personal accounts which seem to indicate that some slaves held a high position in the household, and were much valued. I don't reckon a person entrusts the welfare of their own children to someone they deem incapable or ignorant. And I don't believe it's right to assume that every single person held as a slave, had exactly the same experience.

I guess that's what makes it a peculiar institution.

Subject: RE: BS: Historic tour slave issue
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 11:35 PM

Well, I don't know if the guide was a bad guy, or whether it would be appropriate to punch him out. I sort of think "exploding" is rarely appropriate. Still in all, I grew up in the South, and before I was 16 years old had had it up to here with that kind of BS. Maybe the owner of that particular plantation was a good guy (by somebody's standards) and maybe not. But one way or the other, you KNOW that the guide is going to tell you what a good guy that plantation owner was. That's in the same nature as an urban legend. Just like when I was a kid, EVERY town in the South claimed to have built a better school for their Negroes that the White kids had. And one is never in a position to check out all those stories, but they are just awfully doubtful.